BREAKING Report: Lance Abandoning Fight vs Doping Charges, TDF Titles Gone

Next Up Is wrote:

Now the FBI need to make Obama admit he usurped the Presidency and faked his documents and past in exchange for a light sentence of life in prison.

Even if there were any truth to that crap, the Justice Department under Obama has had authority not seen in recent administrations, and it sucks. The Feebs would have no incentive to target him.

Next Up Is wrote:

Now the FBI need to make Obama admit he usurped the Presidency and faked his documents and past in exchange for a light sentence of life in prison.

Are you doped?

Comment after comment denying the obvious interpretation of why this cheater dropped the fight; and people still wonder how a muslim marxist was able to convince a country of 300 million that he is a yankee doodle dandy.

What a clueless, Penn State style cult Armstrong has spawned.

oops--

Nice to see that somebody else knows the landscape.

And to "not to be negative", do you know what hearsay actually is? Witnesses testifying as to their own observations is not hearsay. Also, hearsay is admissible for some purposes even in criminal prosecutions.

I hope you guys are starting to understand the nature of argumentation, evidence, proof, burden, presumption, and other such concepts.

I will say once again that the fact that an athlete never gives a sample that returns a positive test is NOT dispositive on the issue of whether or not he or she violated the anti-doping code.

Before you declare "that stinks!", make sure you know all about the exact process involved. You will find that, as an investigation is a human exercise involving judgment, it doesn't suck at all.

Good thing t&f is an individual sport and not a team affair, like cycling. The groups of insiders are much smaller, and might just include a coach and an individual athlete or two, which is a much easier group to manage than the organization that is a pro cycling team, especially when a rider like Armstrong participates in several such teams over the years, the number of people involved swells dramatically. Federations can assist through both willful blindness, and through considered negligence that brings criticism on the organization and thereby insulates the athletes.

Just like it is not possible to repeatedly run 9.5, 9.6, and 9.7 basic times in the 100m without juicing, it is not possible to win 7 TdF's without juicing, whether or not positive results are returned.

And as far as a presumption of innocence is concerned, it still exists. Even though athletes are tested, they are not required to prove that they are clean as a condition of participation--they are allowed to participate until such time as they are sanctioned according to the rules, that is, until it has been proved that they were dirty. The fact that they are allowed to participate without having to prove that they are clean is evidence that they are presumed "innocent".

And the returning of a negative result should NOT be construed as "evidence of cleanliness", it is simply NOT "evidence of doping". The fact that there are random tests is a wrinkle in all of this, because you can be suspended for not giving a sample, that is, not returning a result. That is construed as a different ground for sanction, and not the same ground as the returning of a positive test.

On the surface, this looks like an athlete IS actually required to provide "evidence of cleanliness" when asked by the doping authorities to provide a sample, at random times. But it must be remembered that an athlete is a member of an organization AT ALL TIMES, not just during the period of a meet, and therefore that activities like training are considered to be activities that are within the contemplated range of activities that the governing body has authority to govern, and that training is therefore construed as participation in t&f just as much as is competition.

So ultimately, the "presumption of innocence" is still effectively preserved, as athletes are allowed to continue to train and engage in t&f-related activities other than competing, without having to first prove that they are clean.

Respected as in drug cheats who could easily get the heat off them by blaming someone else?

This comment makes the most sense. Next question; are these 7 TDF titles vacated? Might as well vacate the whole TDF.

Remember Mexico City in the 1968 Olympics: Tommy Smith's sub 10 sec 100M the biggie: Bob Beamons jump of 29' 1 1/2". Explanation: thin air, less resistance and ideal weather conditions. These may be anomalies but they are for real.

I am one who will always think of Lance as a 7 time TDF champ.

Randy Oldman wrote:

I still don't see any reason why he should be stripped of the titles.

The USADA has no jurisdiction over the TdF.

That hasn't stopped tham from making it official.

/end of thread

The UCI will appeal the USADA ruling and it will end up with CAS.

After all, Lance paid a lot of money to the UCI and he needs to get bang for his buck. He'll still lose, though.

ranbarts2 wrote:

This comment makes the most sense. Next question; are these 7 TDF titles vacated? Might as well vacate the whole TDF.

Remember Mexico City in the 1968 Olympics: Tommy Smith's sub 10 sec 100M the biggie: Bob Beamons jump of 29' 1 1/2". Explanation: thin air, less resistance and ideal weather conditions. These may be anomalies but they are for real.

I am one who will always think of Lance as a 7 time TDF champ.

You mean the Tommie Smith w/ the 10.1 PR?

CaitlinT wrote:

I agree-

Wouldn't Lance have received EPO and testosterone as a consequence of having chemotherapy and radiation for testicular cancer?

Why doesn't the media address this?

Brooklyn George wrote:

Epo, the blood doping drug used by cyclists, is intended for use by chemo therapy patients to increase red blood cell count. So obviously, Lance Armstrong, a cancer survivor, should be given a little leniency here. Is is an unfair advantage or does it allow him to perform up to his natural abilities? I say the latter

Couple of problems:

1. Cancer treatment was year(s) before TdF wins so there would be no significant performance enhancement remaining from this.

2. EPO can be used in for pts with chemo induced anemia, but anemia is usually not so profound that it requires treatment. White blood cell counts and platelets are more often severely depressed but even then rarely require treatment, which are not helped by EPO. Even in severe anemia, blood transfusions are more commonly used. The main use of EPO is in renal dialysis patients. Testosterone (& analagous anabolics) are not used in cancer therapy and if anything might cause growth of cancer (as occurs with prostate cancer).

Cheaters are people my friend wrote:

The UCI will appeal the USADA ruling and it will end up with CAS.

After all, Lance paid a lot of money to the UCI and he needs to get bang for his buck. He'll still lose, though.

Can someone explain the procedural aspect, does UCI have authority to overturn the USADA decision? I know it could ultimately end up at CAS, but usually the appeals come from the athletes themselves who have gone through arbitration with their national anti-doping associations. Doesn't seem Armstrong could personally appeal if he refused initial arbritration with USADA, and UCI overriding USADA or appealing USADA seems weird (I understand their perspective to appeal if they were complicit in the cover-up)

If it gets to CAS, any gut feeling on how CAS will rule? They stripped Contador, so you'd think they would be more objective than UCI. Curious to get perspective of cycling insiders and knowledgable fans on this one.

What most people don't get about Lance doping is that it doesn't matter. Cycling is so dirty throughout that if you're clean, you don't make the Tour at all. The playing field is fairly level. This is why I have

1) accepted a long time ago that Lance doped,

2) have no problem with it at all.

sandybeaver wrote:

What most people don't get about Lance doping is that it doesn't matter. Cycling is so dirty throughout that if you're clean, you don't make the Tour at all. The playing field is fairly level. This is why I have

1) accepted a long time ago that Lance doped,

2) have no problem with it at all.

I partially agree with you.

1) I also have accepted a long time ago that Lance doped

2) I do have a problem with it because it sends a terrible message to young idealistic riders that to participate in a beautiful, elegant, raw sport you have to cheat.

3) ALthough it's understood fact that the majority of the peloton doped during that era, the playing field may not have been level. Riders respond differently to EPO, and Lance may (or may not) have gained more advantage than others based on his physiology. Also, as a mega-millionaire, he may have had access to better dope-doctors to administer his doping cycle. So may not have been a level playing field.

Uncivil. Try reading your own links.

"USADA said it expected cycling’s governing body to take similar action, but the International Cycling Union was measured in its response, saying it first wanted a full explanation on why Armstrong should relinquish titles he won from 1999 through 2005."

sandybeaver wrote:

What most people don't get about Lance doping is that it doesn't matter. Cycling is so dirty throughout that if you're clean, you don't make the Tour at all. The playing field is fairly level. This is why I have

1) accepted a long time ago that Lance doped,

2) have no problem with it at all.

1) should be: accept that a long time ago Lance was tested and passed

It doesn't matter whether he doped or not. The testing showed nothing. If the dope is not in your system how do you get advantage from it? Magic?

I'm shocked at the number of Lance apologists on letsrun. As information comes out, it will become obvious that Lance was one of the biggest sporting frauds in history.

If this was an agency bringing charges to Usain Bolt there would be none of this level of support. Or, can you imagine the response if this were GAYlen Rupp and Salazar being charged for doping by USADA? It would be a blood bath. But too many bought into the Armstrong myth for too long. It's difficult to know where to start, but a few items:

USADA: Just 18 months ago, Lance welcomed the USADA investigation into doping allegations against him. "I look forward to being vindicated by USADA." It sure sounds like someone who believed the process. Sucks when you don't get the results you want. Do the Lance apologists really want the governing body of the sport (UCI or IAAF) to have control over doping violations? Has it worked in the past? I certainly don't remember anyone crying foul when USADA sanctioned Eddy H., Marion Jones, or Mary Slaney. BTW, one of Lance's best buddies helped write the USADA code that he is now complaining isn't legitimate. Funny stuff.

coach d, are you really that ignorant? 3-person arbitration with each side picking 1 arbitrator and the 2 sides agreeing on the 3rd. Courts in the U.S. have long supported the arbitration process in civil cases. Now because people don't like the outcome, it's a "kangaroo court."

Everyone is doping: Not so. Many are afraid to speak out or lose their jobs (rider, team management, etc). Look what happened to Bassons and Simeoni.

Level playing field: Lance was a obviously a great responder; had exclusive access to one of the best doping doctors in the world; had exclusive friends in the UCI that may have covered up positive tests; how many of his ex-teammates tested positive yet none of them ever tested positive while riding for USPS or Discovery.

Most tested athlete: biggest joke of all; any bit of research will prove that this has been one of Lance's best talking points, but far from the truth.

"NEVER proven guilty": well, I think USADA had a slam dunk case and Lance knew it. As others have said, if he's innocent, fight the charges. It should be easy to discredit the witnesses.

Witnesses: easy to dismiss Landis and Hamilton, but what about Big George? Lance fanboys used to always say when George admits it, it's over. Well, apparently George was likely one of the witnesses. Now those same fanboys claim the process is unfair. Betsy Andreu has never gained anything for speaking the truth, actually hurt her husband's career in cycling. Lance did a good job of calling her fat, ugly, and jealous, but in reality she appears to be someone with a very high moral fiber. I'm damn curious about some of the other witnesses.

It's actually fu*kin' hilarious to see all of the excuses and rationale. His entire story is a myth. Many allegations that he was using pre-cancer; PED use probably let to cancer; he recovers; starts a sophisticated doping program; becomes a legend; destroys the careers of anyone who challenges the myth; but, unfortunately for Lance, he got too greedy. He should have walked away after 7 wins. Indurain was smart. Tied the TdF record and retired. Lance's ego was far too big. He couldn't stand not being in the limelight.

Lance is done. He's a coward. His ball is between a rock and hard place and the rock was just shoved a bit closer to the hard place.

Dumb Engineers wrote:

Uncivil. Try reading your own links.

"USADA said it expected cycling’s governing body to take similar action, but the International Cycling Union was measured in its response, saying it first wanted a full explanation on why Armstrong should relinquish titles he won from 1999 through 2005."

Not sure what you're having trouble with here. USADA has in fact officially stripped Armstrong of his Tour victories. Elsewhere in this thread, which you are probably too attention-starved to digest in its entirety, I have pointed out that the USADA clearly does not have the final say in the matter. Sorry for your confusion.